[Vern]

I see in several posts here that we seem to accept the idea that space is expanding everywhere without question. It seems to me that to accept that notion requires some exceptions that I can't visualize happening. For example, if all space is expanding the space inside atoms must be expanding, and if that is so every thing must increase in dimension right along with space.

How can we measure the expansion; our measuring devices should have expanded also. I am sure someone has thought this out; I have never seen that thinking.

[yor_on]

I see in several posts here that we seem to accept the idea that space is expanding everywhere without question. It seems to me that to accept that notion requires some exceptions that I can't visualize happening. For example, if all space is expanding the space inside atoms must be expanding, and if that is so every thing must increase in dimension right along with space.

How can we measure the expansion; our measuring devices should have expanded also. I am sure someone has thought this out; I have never seen that thinking.

Yes Vern, I wondered the same.
I've seen a definition that separates matter from space.
But as you say, an atom is 99,99~ space?

Why shouldn't that be affected too?

How about this then:)

According to my new hobby horse 'matter' is some sort of 'symmetry break' which have/creates 'space'.

In that 'symmetry' if there is an 'expansion' it can't affect 'matter' as the force/'energy' creating 'matter' needs to be of a very high magnitude.

Also quarks is said to be bound by an 'inverse' force holding them together.
Getting stronger the more apart they get.

'Space' though, as it is said to allow spontaneous 'particle' creation, as well as 'virtual' particles, might be easier to influence?

That is if you by expanding, sees it as transferring more 'potential energy'.
And something that might be seen as 'work'

Or maybe not 'work' at all?
If we mean something transforming easily by our manipulation.
Space seems rather difficult to transform into energy by us:)

Then that 'space/energy' won't disturb our 'zero' balance as it, just as virtual particles, exist for such a short moment that it doesn't violate HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
(as well as Planck time?)

Awh, just a thought.

-----

Is there any way to explain an 'expansion' from your photonics?
(I know that you don't see it as a possibility, but could it be in cooperated if you wanted?)

[Vern]

]Also quarks is said to be bound by an 'inverse' force holding them together.
Getting stronger the more apart they get.

Yes; someone told me that QM just keeps getting weirder and weirder; and he was a physicist studying string theory. Remember my twin Mexican hats. [] They explain the inverse force so that it fits in my mind without pain.  []

The circles are shells of photons bound in resonating patterns to form protons. They are to scale except for the dot in the centre which would be too small to show at this scale. Red is positive charge; blue is negative charge; the shells represent speculative protons each composed of three electromagnetic shells. From the New Theories Forum



 

[yor_on]

So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?

[Vern]

Someone tried to explain the expansion in another forum as being between galaxies only. Local space was not expanding. That just seemed two weird to be real for my thinking.

[Vern]

So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?

I think the atoms as I visualize them would be affected the same as atoms composed of quarks and gluons as in QM theory.

[Vern]

yor_on; you are a fast editor; I must go back and re-read your posts to be sure I didn't miss something []

[Vern]

But if we had a cube that we heated to the same energy amount as what a comparable object 'starts with', when accelerating it, the 'gravitational' effect of that cube would be of a greater magnitude for the accelerating case as compared to a 'stationary' object heated.

I'm not sure I get your reasoning here. I don't see why the accelerating object must have a greater gravitational magnitude. Now I'm even having trouble making sense of what I wrote [] What is a gravitational magnitude?

[yor_on]

Why would it be only between galaxies?
Like the Universe would have 'weaker' points?
Geometrically seen.

Strange.

But we do have a difference between 'space' and 'matter'.
That give us a three dimensional space.
When 'time' comes into play.

Then we have times arrow.
That can go both ways quantum mechanically.
But macroscopically would create problems explaining how 'logic' and 'consciousness' might develop without it having a consistent arrow in time?

----

And you're right, I never express myself clearly enough:)
So I edit...

[Vern]

You think much more deeply than I. I usually just dismiss that which I don't comprehend, like going back in time. Times arrow always points toward the future for me.

[yor_on]

You can look at it this way.
In the twin experiment you have one twin staying on Earth.
The other one will travel at a uniform acceleration of one G to some star.

Now both of those frames will have the same amount of 'gravity'.
Which one will be older?
Or??

And my idea about that cube is that I see it in both instances as the same 'system' containing the same 'energy'
But the amount of energy in the stationary cube (transformed into mass, sort of (Black paper)) even though having an effect (gravity well/time) will be less than the effect we will observe from our accelerating cube where the gravitational effects (time difference) will be larger.

[Vern]

If you engage in a little thought experiment and consider that space-time is flat as in the classical sense; then try to explain relativity phenomena; you will arrive at the Lorentz transformations only when you consider that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

The only other way you can get there is to invent some new constituents of matter which must always move at the speed of light.

[yor_on]

It's you who have created a photonic universe Verne.
And then you have defined parameters that works for it.

I haven't created any universe:)

You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come:

[yor_on]

by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?


---
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time

----

Saying that spacetime becomes flat due to absence of gravity haven't been 'observed' yet?
That is a theoretical definition?

And 'flat' in what manner?
Two dimesions plus time or just not 'curved'??
If it's not curved then the universe would be transformed from 'infinite', as curved, to 'finite' when spacetime became 'flat'.
But I don't see how I otherwise would notice any difference?
As it would be 'invisible' to us.

To me it would become a very unique consistent 'frame of reference' all on its own though.
Without matter or motion.

As fast as you transfered in a motion/acceleration it would not be a 'flat' universe.
Likewise with gravity/mass.
And what about times transformations?

[Vern]

by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?

No; I mean space that does not warp and an arrow of time that always moves toward the future at a constant rate in a special frame of reference that is at rest in the universe. I call that concept flat space-time.

Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time

I mean classic space-time as opposed to Einstein-Minkowski space-time. Since we have completely abandoned the flat-space-time concept, we will never find reality if flat space-time is the reality.

[Vern]

You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come:

Gosh! I hope not! Just think of all the starving people of the world that I would have to feed []

[yor_on]

Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?

[Vern]

Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?

Time would not be frame dependent, but would seem to be by any observer in their frame. The reason is in the construct of matter.

In this thought experiment time is only frame dependent because matter must distort to move. The only way to force matter to do that is to consider it constructed of something that must always move at the invariant speed of light.

Einstein discussed this with H. Ziegler back in 1909. The link points to the discussion.

H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.

[yor_on]

Yes, I read you stating that matter 'distorts' when traveling.
How would you describe that process without using your schematics Vern?

What do you see as the 'force(s)' acting on 'matter', when traveling?

---------

(Just as a 'by side'!
We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)

Sounds dangerous:)

[Vern]

I like your new Avatar; I couldn't find out how to make one when I last looked at my profile.

To explain how matter must distort if space-time is flat and matter consists of a most elemental thing that must always move at the invariant speed of light; the constituents of matter would be moving in patterns. The constituents of matter couldn't move faster than light; the constituents of matter must squeeze together some to remain in the patterns when the matter moves.

I don't know if that is any more clear; it seems clear to me I guess because I have been thinking of it that way for so many years.